Three brothers previously charged in connection with an alleged Sh350 million National Social Security Fund (NSSF) land fraud have now moved to the High Court seeking the removal of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Renson Ingonga from office.
In a constitutional petition, Harish Ramji Manji, Ashvin Ramji Manji, and Ashvin Ramji Bharat are also seeking declarations that DCI boss Mohammed Amin is unfit to continue holding public office.
The trio argues that the decision by the DPP and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) to arrest and prosecute them amounted to a gross violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms as protected under the Bill of Rights.
Accusations of Abuse of Power
Through senior counsel Nelson Havi, the Ramji brothers accuse Ingonga and Amin of abuse of office, malicious prosecution, and acting in blatant disregard of binding court decisions.
They contend that the criminal charges brought against them—relating to the alleged conspiracy to defraud the NSSF of a prime parcel of land valued at approximately Sh350 million—were unconstitutional, unlawful, and oppressive.
“The actions of the respondents were not only illegal but were carried out in total disregard of judicial authority,” the brothers state in their court filings.
Sh300 Million Compensation Sought
In addition to seeking the removal of the two senior officials, the petitioners want the High Court to award them Sh300 million in damages, to be paid jointly by the DPP and the DCI, for the alleged violations of their constitutional rights.
They argue that the prosecution and public portrayal of them as criminal suspects caused irreparable reputational damage, emotional distress, and financial loss.
Challenge to Authority of DPP and DCI
The brothers are also asking the court to declare that the DPP and DCI lacked jurisdiction and authority to initiate criminal investigations or prosecution against them over matters relating to the acquisition and ownership of the disputed property.
According to the petitioners, the issues surrounding the land were purely civil in nature and had already been conclusively determined by the courts.
They argue that the DPP and DCI had no power to countermand or reopen matters already settled by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Reliance on Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Decisions
In the petition, the Ramji brothers state that the Court of Appeal conclusively ruled that they are the lawfully registered owners of the contested property, having acquired it through purchase and transfer for valuable consideration from the NSSF.
They further note that Mombasa Cement Limited, which had challenged the ownership of the land, sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court.
However, that application was dismissed in September last year, effectively bringing the dispute to an end.
Despite these final judicial determinations, the brothers argue that the DPP and DCI unlawfully revived the dispute through criminal proceedings.
Objection to Arrests and Media Exposure
The petitioners accuse DCI Mohammed Amin of abusing his powers by:
-
Directing their arrest and arraignment in court
-
Publishing their photographs on social media
-
Issuing public statements portraying them as criminal suspects
They argue that such actions violated their rights to dignity, privacy, and fair administrative action.
The brothers are seeking court orders restraining the DPP and DCI from:
-
Publishing or circulating their photographs
-
Issuing public statements linking them to criminal investigations
-
Referring to them as suspects in relation to the disputed land
They have also asked the court to compel the DCI to remove their photographs from all social media platforms.
Alleged Constitutional Violations
The petition argues that the actions of Ingonga and Amin violated Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of the Constitution, which obligates all State officers to uphold:
-
The rule of law
-
Good governance
-
Accountability
-
Transparency
They further accuse DCI Amin of abusing powers under Article 244 of the Constitution, which requires the National Police Service to exercise its functions in a manner that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Far-Reaching Implications
The case raises fundamental questions about the limits of prosecutorial and investigative power, the finality of court decisions, and the circumstances under which criminal processes can be invoked in disputes involving property ownership.
The High Court is expected to issue directions on the hearing of the petition, which could have far-reaching implications for the operations of the DPP’s office, the DCI, and the intersection between civil disputes and criminal prosecutions.